|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
and this "backfires" how?
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance. I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one. It's not as if we actually need to be able to count species - what does it really matter whether there are 15, or 25, or 30 species of Titi monkey? Indeed, some taxonomists are lumpers and some are splitters, and have actually argued about how many species are involved. What is more important is the genetic lineage of the various Titi monkeys and their evolution from a common ancestor population. And that it is different from the Capuchin monkeys. Names are just labels we humans use to communicate. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The theory that all life shares a common ancestor is the theory of evolution. I don't understand why one is described as a hypothesis and the other is described as a theory. A theory is a tested hypothesis. A theory also generates hypotheses, like evolution predicts a common ancestor, so that becomes a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I agree, and as we have seen in other threads neither the word evolution as used in biology nor the theory of evolution can be defined. This leads to almost any example of biological change over time, "evolution", being quoted as evidence for "evolution", the theory of. Nature's "15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS" provides several examples of this. Of course nobody in this forum would do such a thing but this slippery meaning of the word evolution provides many opportunities for bait and switch tactics. oo, like you are doing? Always funny to see two creationists agreeing with each other on missing the point ... I would have said
as we have seen in other threads, both the word evolution, as used in biology, and the theory of evolution, ToE, can be defined in several similar ways with similar meanings. Like synonyms. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : spby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dredge writes: The purpose of using "evolved" is to promote their cult of evolution's theology that says, I have always found it fascinating that creationists try so hard to make evolution look like a religion. Why is that? It's like they think religion is a bad thing ... by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Technically I was wrong to say "evolution" couldn't be defined. I should have said that neither word nor theory have a consensus definition. Taq did give a definition but from memory nobody agreed with him. Perhaps, for the record, Taq would like to repeat his definitions for the word and the theory with links to the original posts. No consensus on a single definition, but definitely a consensus of several different definitions saying essentially the same thing in different ways, ways that actually reinforce each other. When explaining words to people it is often useful to use synonyms to convey the particular meaning you want them to understand. Similarly defining the word evolution or the theory of evolution in similar but different ways is done to clarify meaning. see several synonymic definitions:
as we have seen in other threads, both the word evolution, as used in biology, and the theory of evolution, ToE, can be defined in several similar ways with similar meanings. Like synonyms. Your attempts to parse definitions to highlight the minor differences so that you can say there is no consensus is a failed tactic (and one typical of creationists that try to blur and hide the reality). The failure to breed a particular bird coloration is not a failure of evolution -- mutations don't occur because you want them too. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. ... Not quite.
The hypothesis is developed to explain evidence that is known, and then make a prediction for something that is not known that would be then be investigated to test the hypothesis. An hypothesis an untested theory, it is only through testing the hypothesis that it becomes theory ... when it passes the test and is not invalidated.
... So since the hypothesis of common descent is supposedly supported by "mountains of evidence" provided by the fossil record, embryology, genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies ... blah, blah, blah, why it is not promoted to the status of "theory". ... Curiously, when I search for hypothesis of common descent I get the theory of common descent:
Wikipedia: "Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. ... " Common descent -- different species having descended from a common ancestor population -- is a direct outcome of the theory of evolution, so this evidence tested both the theory of evolution and the theory of common descent ... and did not invalidate them. When there are "mountains of evidence" that has tested a theory, then it is considered a "strong theory" ... like the theory of gravity ... and the theory of evolution.
... All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused. Yes you are. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Regardless though, my point stands: a single occurrence of spontaneous generation is not required for universal common ancestry. We don't even have to go that far -- multiple roots of single cell life are now hypothesized with genes shared by horizontal transfer, a process that has been observed in living single cell organisms, even when not of the same "species" (genetic lineage). There is no reason to think this did not occur in early life forms, and I even find it more likely to occur before evolution got settled into genetic lineages. We can also say that the eukaryote cell is a fusion of two single cell organisms, where one is "swallowed" by the other:
quote: ... which would mean that all eukaryotes have at least two common ancestors, if not several ... AND, there is no reason to think that this horizontal transfer was not occurring in pre-biotic life structures, so that they could mix and match functional systems to develop a superior strain (or strains) for survival and reproduction. The RNA structures could also be remnants of the RNA world, when only RNA was used before DNA evolved and outcompeted the RNA forms, consuming them, and incorporating some of them into the cell structure. The DNA does not show that there had to be a single ancestor, just that all the various ancestral lineages that combined and used horizontal transfer ended up with DNA elements and RNA elements we all carry. That is basically 5 nucleic molecules, which then get rearranged into different patterns. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Taq writes:
But if you say it happened without any intelligent input that's science. A deity creating life from dirt is the very definition of superstition. It's an hypothesis, and we can study the various ways it may have occurred, but I don't know if we'll ever know what did occur. What we know is 4 billion years ago the evidence shows no sign of life, but at 3.5 billion years ago there is signs of life with fully developed cells (the first fossil evidence). We also know that there are many pre-biotic molecules in space, likely product of novas.
Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) We also know that there are many self-replicating molecules
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... You mention "other" interpretations ... Translation: "it can't be old age because if was old age then it couldn't be young and and if it wasn't young age then I would have to be wrong, but I am never wrong, so it must be young age and the old age must be wrong, I don't know how or why the evidence is so massive for old age but my interpretation is the earth is young so they must all be wrong, because I can't be wrong ...." etc etc etc etc ad nauseum for over 500 posts in every thread ... The other interpretation is magic-god-did-it-to-fool-you. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The evidence for old age is hardly "massive," it's all radiometric dating. ... You obviously never got very far reading Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. What we actually have is sufficient evidence from other sources to demonstrate the validity of radiometric dating, by several different methods that all arrive at the same results.
... and I continue to think it really funny that such obvious evidence as sedimentary strata and bazillions of fossils is just flatly refused while the absurd and impossible interpretation of time periods assigned to various blocks of strata is treated as reasonable. ... Because the flying magic flood fails miserably to explain the details in the rocks, including the changes in quantities of radiometric isotopes that cannot be explained by water movement, especially also including the changes in life-forms in pace with those radio-isotope changes are viewed along an exponential axis. You always ignore the details because they invalidate your fantasies.
... . Oh, also that wishfulness that calls the non-life of replicating molecules "building blocks of life." Where there is no evidence just make it up. ... Actually the molecules in question use the same amino acids as life ... so they are building blocks. Try reading the threads instead of blind dismissal. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A link to a whole thread is not very specific. Specifically, which do you think is the best example of a self replicating molecule? Curiously I think they are all equally good examples of the state of the science in 2009. I expect more have been developed since and others have been refined. The point is that it does occur by chemical processes, and that it is one of the important elements of life. [abe] Curiously a 1-minute search finds:
quote: This also begs the question of when "life" develops -- I would say when evolution begins, and that looks like these molecules qualify. I'll add this to the thread ... [/abe] Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... No one knows what happened billions of years ago. Scientists who think they do are egotistical bs-artists. Curiously I said it is what the evidence shows. If you disagree with the time then take a crack at [tid-6288] Self-replicating molecules are several universes away from even the simplest self-replicating organism. So you agree that it is a building block for what we need for a self-replicating organism. Can you tell me how we would determine when a self-replicating organism was developed? What does it need to have? When does it become "life" (and how do you define "life")?
Assumed to be pre-biotic. But really just a guess. Actually they are organic molecules that are currently used in all life as we know it. Fully developed and ready to be included in a developing life form. Therefore the development of life does not need to develop these molecules, just use them. That sounds like the definition of pre-biotic ...
quote: Not a guess, rather it's fact.
More guesswork. An educated guess. They exist in space, near earth and in the far reaches. All other elements and molecules seem to occur as a result of stars and nova, both making elements heavier than hydrogen and forming molecules as the nova gas clouds condense. Of course they could be planted in space by god/s seeding the universe to create life. That requires evidence of god/s to be more credible than the nova hypothesis. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously I think they are all equally good examples
Good, then you'll have no trouble picking one. Please give an example that is not behind a paywall. Try the video for starters ...
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II):
NOTE: this starts with a review of creationist claims, and the actual science starts at about 2:40 into the video. You can move the button ahead to the 2:40 mark and not miss any of the science. You can also turn off the sound, unless you are very fond of Beethoven's 9th symphony, as there is no narration. You don't need the sound, it is just Beethoven for background music, no voice-over. The first 2 minutes 40 seconds reviews typical creationist misconceptions and misinformation, a touch snide. Watch this one to skip the intro
enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024